Leaders stand idly by as Columbia River juggernaut rolls on

With the spring primaries only weeks away, most voters probably assume that elected leaders seeking new terms have been busy representing us and leading this state into the future. Seems simple enough. But what, more precisely, do we expect? For starters, showing up, not lying and obeying the law, but that goes for every citizen. Certainly we expect more of leaders.

At a minimum, we should expect them to pay attention to the long-term needs of our state, and the long-term consequences of the decisions made today to meet needs now and likely to emerge. You and I get to live our lives in the present, but we expect our elected representatives, leaders all, to pay attention to the interacting decisions that will shape and condition the future. In fact, they must perform this function for they are the only ones in our system of government that are formally charged with this oversight.

So what if I told you that the biggest public works project in the history of the state has received no formal review by our state Legislature? No votes, nothing. What if you were told that this project will be approved by nonelected agency officials at the state and federal levels? And what if you were told that, by the way, more than $100 million has been spent to enable those state and federal officials to completely ignore whatever concerns you might have at this point because, well, they have already spent $100 million and it's too late?

You'd probably feel as I do: left out, left behind and left wondering just what our elected leaders have been doing while the Oregon and Washington state transportation departments have been writing themselves a blank check for their version of the Columbia River Crossing project. Astoundingly, the $4 billion Columbia River Crossing will move forward without a single serious debate and vote by the Oregon Legislature.

It's incomprehensible, or should be. How can this biggest single project, this gigantic commitment of funds and community livability, not to mention environmental quality, be receiving so little oversight and no legislative approval? Years ago we might have heard that it's too complicated, that we should let the experts decide. But that era is long gone.

We might be told, as the Columbia River Crossing staff attempts to do, that sure, it's expensive, but you'll never know it happened. No changes will be noticeable in traffic or land use once the bridge is rebuilt. However, after spending the legacy of generations to saddle the coming generations with backward-looking facilities, it seems odd that the legacy of our generation will be an "unnoticeable" but hugely expensive highway project.

I can only conclude that this incredible lack of legislative involvement is due to the fact our leaders really don't want to lead. That the absence of a legislative debate on this project, and any real consideration of alternatives not constrained by the visions of the highway builders and their allies, is due to the fact that the size of the project makes it too hot to handle. Much better to be in the background of the picture at the ribbon-cutting than in the lead for the effort to ensure that this project is more than the rigid, shallow and expensive exercise that it has become. It's hard work, and it might result in killing the project, something that our leaders fear being associated with more than an overheated tab for an increasingly silly project that "someone else" will pay for.

To be sure, our local and regional leaders haven't been helping much. Today, their only real power in the face of the transportation departments and their lobbyists is to resign from the project council and to consistently and forcefully oppose the project. However, their own lists of future local ribbon-cuttings often depend on state transportation department acquiescence, making the prospect of local and regional government opposition dim to say the least.

Clearly it doesn't have to be this way. Leaders could assert that they must and will have a role in this, the biggest public works project of their careers. They do, after all, have some impact on what state agencies do. Our leaders at all levels don't have to be silent or alone on this. Rather than simply organizing their campaigns for re-election, they could actually be organizing a campaign to turn this situation -- some might say this embarrassing situation -- around.

Further, they don't even have to campaign to kill the project. Instead, they could simply ask that a relatively small portion of the unspent millions already committed to the highway builders be reprogrammed to consider real alternatives to the 1960s-era highway project that the transportation agencies can't let go of. Fundamentally, it's time to reprogram the Oregon Department of Transportation. There is simply no excuse that it be allowed to continue its development of Oregon using only a rearview mirror as its principal tool for analysis. And keep this in mind: The Legislature and our local elected leaders don't have to ask for permission; they can act. Will they?

Ethan Seltzer is a professor in the Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University.